California Sues Automakers for Global Warming

ajs writes "Reuters is reporting that the state of California is suing automakers over global warming. California is claiming that automakers have 'harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health,' of the state. The targeted automakers are Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co."

Comments

Oh for the love of.....

[BWJones]

Oh, for the love of...... *checks calendar..... nope, not April 1st)*

"(California) just passed a new law to cut global warming emissions by 25 percent and that's a good start and this lawsuit is a good next step," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program.

Now, I am pretty much middle of the road politically (Disclaimer: I lean a bit left though), but this is insane. Insane as in insanely bad. Hey, Sierra Club! This statement may have just cost you 2007s contribution from me. The global warming legislation had good components, but if you start allying yourself with lawsuits like this, count me out.

Lockyer told Reuters he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of dollars" from the automakers in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California.

Uh huh.... and what is your take going to be Lockyer? Oh, just a small percentage you say, but a small percentage of an obscenely large number of dollars is still lots of dollars, right? Will you be buying a new Bentley with your share? Or will it be a party in your Escalade?

While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products? Are you going to say that the drivers of such automobiles are "addicted", so by their logic are immune to prosecution? Why focus on the automakers? Why not grab every last dollar you can by going after the drivers and the cities and states that build the roads and freeways, because without them, the automakers would not have a market, right? As long as we are suing people because of global warming, why not airlines? Airline manufacturers? Smokers? Dry cleaners? The leather tanners that made your loafers? Hey, how about the computer industry? Or....... I *know*, lets sue all of the electrical generating companies and take us back to the dark ages.

Seriously though, I understand that there are lots of sources of global warming, but Lockyer, this is not the way to solve the problem by making the automotive companies the boogeymen. The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards that are more stringent than where they are now, provide incentives for more fuel efficient and lower polluting automobiles rather than the current system where there is an incentive for large SUVs, and work from the consumer side *without* filing suits to line your pocketses.

*RANT*Oh and while we are at it, Hey! G.W.B, instead of sucking money out of research, development and education, why don't you do what you said and invest in education and research? We are not going to solve these problems through a narrow focus on religious fundamentalism while we are excluding science education.

Jeez, sometimes I feel like I am getting squeezed on the far left by goofy loonies like Lockyer and pushed out of the picture by power hungry neocon fundies on the extreme right. What happened to the middle ground where people of reason and careful thought worked through compromise to help advance progress?*/RANT*

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[eln]

California has made many attempts to get automobile manufacturers to cut emissions, and have been repeatedly sued by those auto manufacturers to keep those laws from getting enforced. California is now simply returning the favor.

I doubt that anyone seriously expects the state to win this suit, but they are at the very least drawing attention to the auto manufacturers' continuous efforts to keep any law that might involve reduced emissions or higher fuel economy off the books.

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[carpeweb]

I lean left, too, but as a market capitalist, not as a socialist.

The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards

That's less effective than increasing the cost of gasoline, which is more market-based as a solution. Yes, I know that artificially increasing the cost of gasoline might have secondary economic and political effects, such as giving politicians more pork. But it definitely

provide[s] incentives for more fuel efficient and lower polluting automobiles

However, I, too, feel the pinch between the ascendant right wing and the lunatic left wing. There's not much room for "real" liberals, is there?

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[PhotoJim]

If California wants vehicles to emit fewer pollutants, it could change taxation policy to dissuade people from driving large vehicles, or from driving at all. It could improve public transportation so that people don't have to drive.

Oh wait. This is an American state. Market failures are ok, unless we can fix them without taxing anyone.

Seriously, instead of telling the manufacturers they have to meet a certain fuel economy rating, California should just apply taxes to vehicles that don't meet that rating. The further above the rating, the higher the tax. If someone wants to pay 35% tax on a Hummer H2 despite its fuel economy, let him. If the population of California still buys vehicles that drink too much gas, raise the taxes. Conversely, if they achieve a better-than-anticipated mileage, consider reducing the tax, or providing a small tax credit to very environmentally-friendly vehicles. Target demand, not supply. Give people freedom to buy what they want, but a strong economic incentive to buy what is best for society as a whole.

Taxing fuel makes sense too. The more fuel your vehicle consumes, and the further you drive it, the more tax you pay. However, this creates economic pressure on poor Californians, so it would have to be balanced with a tax credit system for the poor or improvements to public transit to mitigate the impact.

Sure, this will hurt the economy in the short run, but in the long run, doing nothing will do far more damage.

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[UbuntuDupe]

I hate people who take a teensy bit of information out of context and act like they know the whole topic. In an unrelated matter:

Gas is price-inelastic. This means increasing the price has very little effect on how much is consumed

Yes, gas is price inelastic -- in the short term. You are correct that

SUV sales and gas sales have not been negatively impacted by the gasoline increases recently

I also do not turn my li'l car in and buy an SUV on every day when gas prices drop.

However, if people expect these to be permanent, *then* they start making long term adaptations. Now, if we have a gas tax, and use the proceeds to clean up or compensate the damage from pollution, and people still drive the same ... er ... what's the problem?

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[amRadioHed]

Hmm...I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?

Yeah, stop selling in the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm sure that would work great for them.

Re:Oh for the love of.....

[dgatwood]

Even better, it could fund the construction of about four or five more clean, safe nuclear power plants so we can remove our dependence on power plants that produce more global warming, e.g. fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants. (Yeah, that's right. Hydro plants in some cases cause more global warming than fossil fuel plants thanks to decaying matter in the holding ponds producing methane.)

Then, California could mandate that all automobiles be powered off of electrical power using some of the newer, fast-charging batteries. At today's electrical rates, if my math was correct, assuming no conversion loss in the storage process, electric-powered cars would be equivalent to paying $0.125 (12 1/2 cents) per gallon at the pumps. With more nuke plants online, the price of energy would be even cheaper. This would have a significant economic benefit for the state, reducing the cost of consumer goods and driving the economy. This, in turn, would free financial resources that could be used to buy the next crop of automobiles, so in the end, auto manufacturers come out ahead, too.

Because they don't involve gasoline dispensers, mandatory electric cars (as in 100% of all new vehicles sold must be electric by 2012) would eliminate multiple causes of smog and pollution; not only would you drastically reduce automobile emissions, but you would also drastically reduce evaporation of gasoline vapors, fuel spills, etc. at the pumps. You would also eliminate a major cause of groundwater contamination---specifically, leaking fuel tanks.

Finally, this would dramatically reduce our state's dependence on oil, which would make us less vulnerable to the goings on in parts of the world where oil is produced. The long-term economic benefits are fairly significant.

The problem is that in order to remove our dependence on oil, we have to have a replacement. That means that the cost of battery technology needs to drop by a couple orders of magnitude. Volume will achieve this, but only if all car manufacturers are forced to switch by law. otherwise, they will look at the initial cost and say that it is too expensive in the short term, and would harm their ability to compete in the market.

And solving the battery problem is only one problem. The fact is, we also have aging power grids that haven't been maintained, coupled with a serious lack of generating capacity. Much of this shortage has been the result of environmentalism gone amuck, screaming "not in my backyard" about nuclear plants, all the while promoting things that are much worse for the environment.

That's what bothers me most about the environmental movement. It always seems to take a knee-jerk approach rather than a studied view of the whole system, and the result is that more often than not, the things that are pushed in the name of environmental reform usually do more harm than good. What we need most is a careful study of our energy policy in CA, a careful study of our generator capacity, and a detailed analysis of how much additional power we need to be able to handle EV cars. Then, we need laws that demand EV cars. It is far easier to control emissions from a few power plants owned by a few companies than to control emissions from a few million automobiles.

In Soviet Californiastan...

[Shihar]

In Soviet Californiastan you don't sue the government for failure to implement pollution controls, the government sues you!

Re:On the face it sounds insane...

[Just Some Guy]

...but automakers have been doing all they can to avoid complying with legislation already passed in California that restricts emissions.

Sounds like a governmental problem to me. If the manufacturers are avoiding the limits by legal means, then the legislature screwed up. If they're avoiding the limits by illegal means, then law enforcement has screwed up. Either way, it appears to be easier for California to sue someone than to admit that their lawmakers and/or cops are ineffectual.

Impressive Spin

[Xiroth]

Huh. Going from the comments here, this has been given such a cunning spin that even most people here are fooled by it.

Let's make it a little bit more clear. California are not launching the lawsuit on the basis that "They're producing too much greenhouse gases". They're launching it on the basis that the automakers are not complying with regulations laid down by the Californian government - regulations which have been tied up by multiple lawsuits from the involved automakers. This is a countersuit - an attempt to get the courts on the government's side so that the automakers have nowhere left to turn and have to comply if they are to continue selling in the state. By most people's estimations, a government forcing companies to comply with their laws for the good of its constituents is fine and entirely within their right, but even most people who would have no problems with it when laid out like that are arguing against it here because it's been presented just so.

A very impressive (and simple, too) piece of spin - technically true, and makes the other party look like a fool.